The biggest loser in the Trump-Harris debate

 

We need moderators who aren't extensions of the Harris campaign: Sen. Tim Scott

Former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and GOP South Carolina Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott recap the ABC News Presidential Debate on ‘Hannity' (Courtesy: ABC News).

The biggest loser in the first—and likely only—presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump was ABC News, the event's host. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis drew heavy criticism for fact-checking Trump in real time on multiple occasions—sometimes inaccurately—while letting Harris make unchecked claims and distortions.

Social media quickly lit up, especially from commentators on the right, with many calling Tuesday night’s debate one of the most biased and lopsided in history.

IN THE TRUMP-HARRIS FACE-OFF THERE WAS A CLEAR WINNER BUT DON'T BELIEVE THIS ELECTION IS OVER

Here are several instances where Kamala Harris could—and should—have been fact-checked during the debate:

1. Portraying Project 2025 as Trump’s personal manifesto and claiming he would pass a nationwide abortion ban.

2. Rehashing Trump’s "very fine people on both sides" comment from Charlottesville, a statement that has been repeatedly debunked.

3. Blaming Trump for overseeing the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, when the pandemic was the clear cause.

4. Claiming that Donald Trump has opposed IVF treatments.

5. Denying that she ever supported gun confiscation, despite video evidence of her advocating for it.

6. Stating that Trump’s tax cuts only benefited the wealthy.

7. Taking credit, along with Biden, for "creating" 800,000 manufacturing jobs—an inaccurate figure.

There were more instances where Harris distorted both her record and Trump’s, yet none were challenged by the moderators.

Even a left-leaning fact-checker has admitted that Trump never referred to Charlottesville neo-Nazis as "very fine people," dealing a blow to Biden’s repeated use of the claim.

Given the current political climate, this lack of scrutiny from the media may have been predictable. With Harris' honeymoon period fading and Trump regaining ground in the polls, the liberal media seems to be in full panic mode.

Kamala Harris’ attempt to avoid committing to specific policies while on the campaign trail has proven ineffective. Her reluctance to participate in solo interviews and press conferences has left American voters largely uninformed about her positions. As a result, the debate was crucial for shedding light on her stance. Unfortunately, Harris largely deflected questions and provided minimal detail on the few policies she did mention, leaving voters with little understanding of her views.

ABC DEBATE MODERATORS SPARK FURY FOR AGGRESSIVE FACT-CHECKING OF TRUMP, EASY TREATMENT OF HARRIS

That was supposed to be the moderators' responsibility, but they failed to fulfill it. Instead, they allowed Harris to deliver vague, Biden-esque platitudes without pressing for substantive answers. Once again, a deeply partisan candidate is making grand promises to unite the country—a familiar refrain.

When the moderators asked Harris early in the debate whether people were better off under the Biden-Harris administration compared to the Trump era, she did not address specific areas of progress—possibly because there were none. Instead, she launched into a description of her "opportunity economy," which she frequently touted as her key plan. This plan revolves around providing financial assistance for home purchases, starting businesses, and raising children.

The debate did not clarify how taxpayers would fund these "opportunities." This approach is reminiscent of Biden’s style: offering financial incentives to key voter groups, such as young people and small business owners, who have recently shifted away from Democratic support and traditionally leaned towards Trump.

TRUMP SPARS WITH HARRIS, MODERATORS DURING HEATED PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: 'SHE DOESN'T HAVE A PLAN'

Trump, in contrast, failed to make a compelling case. While Harris came across as well-prepared and polished, with practiced gestures and studied mannerisms, Trump seemed noticeably under-prepared. This was frustrating for his supporters, as he had genuine accomplishments to highlight. He had indeed built a strong economy, which was subsequently hit hard by COVID. He had left the world in a state of relative peace and forged significant new alliances in the Middle East. He had also worked to limit Iran’s ability to conduct proxy wars through sanctions and had reduced Russia’s energy influence by canceling the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. Additionally, he had exposed China’s deceptive practices and rule-breaking, a stance not taken by his predecessors.

Instead of robustly defending these achievements, Trump meandered through his responses and seemed to forget to engage with a positive demeanor.

TRUMP FLIPS 'I'M TALKING' SCRIPT FROM 2020 DEBATE AGAINST KAMALA HARRIS DURING PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SHOWDOWN

Instead of methodically presenting evidence that his administration had benefited the middle class more than hers, Trump reverted to his usual approach, once again asserting that he had actually won the 2020 election.

That misstep likely thrilled the liberal press, as his remarks will revive Biden and Harris’ warnings about Trump being a threat to democracy—a narrative that had largely faded from political discussions in recent months.

While he repeatedly criticized Harris for her inability to control illegal immigration, he missed the chance to highlight the specific harms caused by the migrant influx, such as the strain on cities, the rise in fentanyl-related deaths due to the open border, and the 320,000 children the White House has reportedly lost track of. It was low-hanging fruit, but an opportunity squandered.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

He repeatedly took the bait. When Harris criticized his rallies, claiming that attendees got bored and left, he couldn't resist slipping back into a familiar argument over crowd sizes.

Trump did manage to score some solid points, highlighting that despite criticism of his tariff policy, the Biden-Harris administration had kept his tariffs on Chinese imports in place because they were working. He also challenged the notion of jobs "created" by the current administration, labeling them as "bounce-back" jobs—and he's correct.

see more